South Hadley District Review Report

District Review Report

South Hadley Public Schools

Review conducted May 27-30, 2014

Center for District and School Accountability

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Organization of this Report

South Hadley Public Schools District Review Overview

South Hadley Public Schools District Review Findings

South Hadley Public Schools District Review Recommendations

Appendix A: Review Team, Activities, and Site Visit Schedule

Appendix B: Enrollment, Performance, and Expenditures

Appendix C: Instructional Inventory

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906

Phone 781-338-3000TTY: N.E.T. Replay 800-439-2370


This document was prepared by the
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D.

Commissioner

Published November 2014

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, an affirmative action employer, is committed to ensuring that all of its programs and facilities are accessible to all members of the public. We do not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Inquiries regarding the Department’s compliance with Title IX and other civil rights laws may be directed to the Human Resources Director, 75 Pleasant St., Malden, MA 02148-4906. Phone: 781-338-6105.

© 2014 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Permission is hereby granted to copy any or all parts of this document for non-commercial educational purposes. Please credit the “Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.”

This document printed on recycled paper

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906

Phone 781-338-3000TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370

South Hadley District Review Report

South Hadley Public Schools District Review Overview

Purpose

Conducted under Chapter 15, Section 55A of the Massachusetts General Laws, district reviews support local school districts in establishing or strengthening a cycle of continuous improvement. Reviews consider carefully the effectiveness of systemwide functions,with reference tothe six district standards used by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE): leadership and governance, curriculum and instruction, assessment, human resources and professional development, student support, and financial and asset management.Reviews identify systems and practices that may be impeding improvement as well as those most likely to be contributing to positive results.

Districts reviewed in the 2013-2014 school year include districts classified into Level 2 or Level 3of ESE’s framework for district accountability and assistance. Review reports may be used by ESE and the district to establish priority for assistance and make resource allocation decisions.

Methodology

Reviews collect evidence for each of the six district standards above.A district review team consisting of independent consultants with expertise in each of the district standards reviewsdocumentation, data, and reports for two days before conducting a four-day district visit that includes visits to individual schools. The team conducts interviews and focus group sessions with such stakeholders as school committee members, teachers’ association representatives, administrators, teachers, parents, and students. Team members also observe classroom instructional practice. Subsequent to the onsite review, the team meets for two days to develop findings and recommendations before submitting a draft report to ESE. District review reports focus primarily on the system’s most significant strengths and challenges, with an emphasis on identifying areas for improvement.

Site Visit

The site visit to the South Hadley was conducted from May 27 to May 30, 2014. The site visit included 35 hours of interviews and focus groups with approximately85 stakeholders, including school committee members, district administrators, school staff,parents, students and teachers’ association representatives. The review team conducted three focus groups with seven elementary school teachers, nine middle school teachers, and seven high school teachers.

A list of review team members, information about review activities, and the site visit schedule are in Appendix A, and Appendix B provides information about enrollment, student performance, and expenditures. The team observed classroom instructional practice in51classrooms in 4 schools. The team collected data using an instructional inventory, a tool for recording observed characteristics of standards-based teaching. This data is contained in Appendix C.

District Profile

South Hadley has a town manager form of government and the chair of the school committee is elected. There are five members of the school committee and they meet monthly.

The current superintendent has been in the position since July 2012. The district leadership team includesprincipals, the assistant superintendent, the director of curriculum and grants, the director of student services, and the school business administrator. Central office positions have beenmostly stable in numberover the past two years. The district hasfour principals leadingfour schools. There are threeother school administrators, including assistant principals. In addition, the assistant principals are members of a bargaining unit. There are a total of 154teachers in the district.

In the 2013-2014 school year, 1,939 studentswere enrolled in the district’s 4 schools:

Table 1: South Hadley Public Schools

Schools, Type, Grades Served, and Enrollment,* 2013-2014

School Name / School Type / Grades Served / Enrollment
Plains Elementary School / EES / PK-1 / 328
Mosier Elementary School / ES / 2-4 / 407
Michael E. Smith Middle School / MS / 5-8 / 599
South Hadley High School / HS / 9-12 / 605
Totals / 4 schools / PK-12 / 1,939
*As of October 1, 2013

Between 2010 and 2014 overall student enrollment decreased by 9 percent.Enrollment figures by race/ethnicity and high needs populations (i.e., students with disabilities, students from low-income families, and English language learners (ELLs) and former ELLs) as compared with the state are provided in Tables B1a and B1b in Appendix B.

Total in-district per-pupil expenditures were 7 percent higher than the median in-district per pupil expenditures for 51 K-12 districts of similar size (1,000-1,999 students) in fiscal year 2013: $13,388compared with $12,506(seeDistrict Analysis and Review Tool Detail: Staffing & Finance). Actual net school spending has been well above (19.1 percent in 2012 and 18.1 percent in 2013) what is required by the Chapter 70 state education aid program, as shown in Table B8 in Appendix B.

Student Performance[1]

South Hadley is a Level 2 district because Mosier Elementary and Smith Middle are in Level 2.

  • Mosier Elementary is in the 58th percentile of elementary schools and is in Level 2 for failing to meet its gap narrowing targets with a cumulative Progress Performance Index (PPI) of 71 for all students and 58 for high needs students;the target is 75.
  • Smith Middle is in the 40th percentile of middle schools and is in Level 2 for failing to meet its gap narrowing targets for all students.
  • South Hadley High is in the 47th percentile of high schools and is in Level 1 with a cumulative PPI of 79 for all students and 77 for high needs students;the target is 75.

The district’s 2013 Composite Performance Index (CPI) was considered on target for math and science but the district did not reach its CPI target for ELA.

  • ELA CPI was 87.8 in 2013, below the district’s target of 90.2.
  • Math CPI was 82.2 in 2013.This was considered on target because it was within 1.25 percentage points of the district’s target of 82.9.
  • Science CPI was 81.3 in 2013.This was considered on target because it was within 1.25 percentage points of the district’s target of 81.4.

ELA proficiency rates were above the state rate for the district as whole and for every grade except grades 3 and 8.

  • ELA proficiency rates for all students in the district were 69 percent in 2010 and 71 percent in 2013, above the state rate of 69 percent.
  • ELA proficiency was above the state rate by 11 percentage points in grade 4 and by 1 to 3 points in h grades 5, 6, 7, and 10. ELA proficiency was below the state rate by 3 and 4 percentage points in grades 3 and 8, respectively.
  • ELA proficiency was higher in 2013 than in 2010 by 11 percentage points in grades 7 and 10 and by 1 to 5 percentage points in grades 4, 5, and 6. ELA proficiency was lower in 2013 than in 2010 by 12 and 6 percentage points in grades 3 and 8, respectively.

Math proficiency was above the state rate for the district as a whole and equal to or above the state rate for every grade except grades 6 and 8.

  • Math proficiency rates for all students in the district improved steadily from 58 percent in 2010 to 62 percent in 2013, above the state rate of 61 percent.
  • Math proficiency in the district was equal to the state rate in grades 4 and 10 and above the state rate by 5, 10, and 3 percentage points in grades 3, 5, and 7, respectively. Math proficiency was below the state rate by 2 and 8 percentage points in grades 6 and 8, respectively.
  • Math proficiency was higher in 2013 than in 2010 by 23 percentage points in grade 5, by 2, 7, and 9 points in grades4, 6, and 7, respectively. Math proficiency was lower in 2013 than in 2010 by 3 to 7 percentage points in grades 3, 8, and 10.

Science proficiency was above the state rate for the district as a whole and in grades 5 and 8 and below the state rate in grade 10.

  • Grade 5 science proficiency was 52 percent in 2010 and 60 percent in 2013, above the state rate of 51 percent.
  • Grade 8 science proficiency was 42 percent in 2010 and 40 percent in 2013, and was above the state rate of 39 percent.
  • Grade 10 science proficiency 67 percent in 2010 and 66 percent in 2013, below the state rate of 71 percent.

ELA and math proficiency for high needs students was higher in 2013 than in 2010.

  • ELA proficiency for high needs students was 52 percent in 2013, 6 percentage points higher than the 2010 rate of 46 percent, and higher than the 2013 state rate of 48 percent.
  • Math proficiency for high needs students increased steadily from 31 percent in 2010 to 41 percent in 2013, above the 2013 state rate of 40 percent.

South Hadley metthe 2014 four-year cohort and five-year cohort graduation rate targets.

  • The four-year cohort graduation rate was 88.8 percent in 2013, higher than the rate of 83.3 percent in 2010, and above the 2013 state graduation rate of 85.0 percent.
  • The five-year cohort graduation rate was 91.7 percent in 2012, higher than the rate of 87.4 percent in 2009, and above the 2012 state graduation rate of 87.5 percent.
  • The annual dropout rate for South Hadley was 2.8 percent in 2010 and 1.0 percent in 2013, below the statewide rate of 2.2 percent.

South Hadley Public SchoolsDistrict Review Findings

Strengths

Leadership and Governance

1. Under the leadership of the superintendent, the district has identified several major areas in need of improvement and has developed immediate and long-range improvement plans and strategies to address these challenges.

A.Largely through attrition, the superintendent reduced the amount of personnel by 32.7 positions, resulting in a savings to the district of $1,300,000.

1. According to the superintendent, despite declining enrollments, the district employed the same number of staff for 2,300 students as it had for 1,600.The static staffing levels resulted in a “concern that we have more personnel than the town’s budget can sustain over time.”

B.The district has recently adopted a “Five Year Curriculum and Program Evaluation Review Cycle” to ensure curriculum review and system-wide alignment.

1. Although the district had engaged in curriculum development efforts in a number of areas, the superintendent noted that the district had not previously established a multi-year plan to ensure that all curricular areas were reviewed, aligned from pre-K to 12, and properly funded as needed to ensure systemwide cohesion.

2. Mathematics was reviewed in 2012-2013,English language arts and science are under review in the current school year, and the remaining subject areas are slated for review through 2016. During the 2016-2017 school year, the district will return to a review of the mathematics program.

C. In the spring of 2013, in preparation for the 2013-2014 school year, the superintendent made changes in leadership in the special education department and created an organizational chart to clarify areas of responsibility.

1. Within the special education department, the superintendent determined that there were communication problems affecting the delivery of services resulting in “parent frustrations.” Additionally, the number of personnel, as well as their deployment, gave rise to concerns about cost and effectiveness.

2. At the time of the review team visit, the district was engaged in an internal review of the special education department with the intent to report to the school committee in June 2014.

D. The superintendent noted the absence of a “clear and concise vision for the school system.” As a result,he initiated steps to develop both a District Improvement Plan (DIP) and School Improvement Plans (SIPs) for each of the four schools.

1. Principals acknowledged the importance of the DIP in their work;describing that it “guides what we do.”

a. The superintendent made it a practice to report on the progress of the DIP and each SIP to the school committee at the end of the school year, stating that it was “important for the school committee to know about achievement.”

b. The school committee noted that there was a“budget focus on student needs” and that the DIP represented an “ongoing theme of accountability and use of data to determine if the goals are being met.”

Impact: In addressing these four areas of school district operations with a sense of urgency, the district hascreated a framework for a more efficient and effective use of financial resources;it has laid the groundwork for continued student achievement though curriculum alignment; and it has created a process for developing and evaluating district- and building-levelshort-and long-term goals dedicated to student achievement.

2. The principals are beginning to operate with a spirit of collaboration by exhibiting a systemwide perspective in making critical decisions about the budget and closing the achievement gap. This represents a departure from the previous practice of operating exclusively from a strictly building-based perspective.

A.Administrators reported that the administrative team “works well together with a focus onclosing the achievement gap.”

1. Administrators reported that in developing the budget, justifications for requests had to be viewed on a districtwide basis.

a. Principals reported that in developing the budget, a large part of the decision-making process was focused on student needs. They articulated key goals to improve student achievement and ensure student success when they transition to the next school within the district.

b. There wasrecognition within the district that needs vary among buildings and that because of this variation, different amounts of money were allocated to each school for instructional materials.

2. According to the superintendent, recently hired administrators were selected primarily on the basis of their potential as instructional leaders. Principals see themselves as instructional leaders who focus on instructional improvement and improved student achievement.

a. School-to-school transition activities for both students and parents added to a sense of ownership for the success of all. These were embedded within the structure of each school, with “step-up days” at each level as well as evening activities for families.

b. Principals confirmed the superintendent’s perspective regarding their role as instructional leaders in an interview.

B. Theschool committee viewed the principals as instructional leaders, citing the collaborative approach to learningtheyhave bought to the district’s improvement goals.

Impact: By working collaboratively, principals help ensure that all students can benefit from improved, high quality PK-12 programs as they move upward in the system. By collaborating on challenging budget issues, the principals help present a unified front to the community regarding the needs of its children.

Curriculum and Instruction

3. The district has developed and aligned new K-12 curriculum documents in ELA, mathematics, and science to the 2011 MA Curriculum Frameworks. The district has also recently created a curriculum review and revision cycle.

A. The district leadership has established robust expectations and a templatefor all of itscurricular development work.

1. Its Technical Guidelines for Curriculum Unitsrequires specific components to all curriculum development work:alignment to 2011 MassachusettsCurriculum Frameworks, learning objectives, essential questions/essential understandings, instructional strategies, assessments, resources, and timelines.

2. At the time of the review team visit, the district had fully developed curriculum documents aligned to 2011 MassachusettsCurriculum Frameworks in mathematics, English language arts, and science.

B.The district has developed a five-year curriculum and program evaluation review cycle.

1. There is a districtwide curriculum review committee with representation from each school.

2. Curriculum facilitators and department chairs review and revise the curriculum with teachers at the school level and align curriculum across grades and content areas. Some upper grade vertical alignment has also taken place.

C. The superintendent’s concerns about curricular “discrepancies“ led to the selection of a newmathematics program in grades K-9, and the strengthening and extension of the Literacy CollaborativeModel in grades K-5.

1. The district, working with groups of teachers, chose a new mathematics series. It was selected not only for its for the alignment to 2011 MA Curriculum Frameworks but also for its embedded differentiated instructional strategiesand its K-8 vertical alignment.

a. The district has created technologygoals to provide support for the effective use of technology and media in classrooms. The goalsalso support implementation ofthe software in the new mathematics series.

2. The district chose to extend its K-5Literacy Collaborative Model followed by an anthology series, with literacy support,in grades 6- 12 in order to improvecurricular alignment and provide greater opportunities for differentiation.

Impact: Newly revised curriculum documents provide the foundation for cohesive and vertically aligned curriculum materials for ELA, math and science, helping to ensure that the curriculum is guaranteed and viable for all students. The review cycle will provide for the regular and timely review and revision and assist leaders in the identification of needed resources to meet the needs of all learners. New technology goals have the capacity to improve how technology is used to enhance teaching and learning.